TSIDMZ

We are not so much at war against a nation, against a phenomenon or a political idea, but rather against a new and scary aeon that will sweep away our traditions and trample everything our ancestors fought for.

05/07/2014, Xavier KRUTH

A few months ago we were introduced by TSIDMZ - or Thulesehnsucht In Der MachineZeit - to the eurasiatic stream of thought. The eurasiatic idea exists since more or less a century, and has been revived more recently by the Russian philosopher and sociologist Alexandr Dugin. Several bands in the industrial/dark-ambient/neofolk area support the eurasiatic point of view: TSIDMZ, Barbarossa Umtrunk, Sonnenkind, Porta Vittoria… We asked Solimano from TSIDMZ for more explanations on the eurasiatic worldview. The opinions expressed in this interview are Solimano’s and not mine. Still, we thought it would be interesting to publish this interview as it offers a lot of information on the euraiatic movement and has multiple links to the actuality in, e.g. in Russia and Ukraine.

Dear Solimano, thank you for being so kind to agree with an interview with us. First of all, explain us the concept of TSIDMZ and the origin of the name…

“Nowadays we are not so much at war against a nation, against a phenomenon, against a party or a political idea, but rather against the emergence of a new and scary aeon, an aeon that will sweep away traditions, will invert values, will annihilate and will replace the deep, real and spiritual essence of human being with fake, low and demonic identities.”

TSIDMZ is an Italian post-atomic/electro-martial project with numerous influences from various genres within the field of Electronic Music. It was born and conceived between 2002 and 2007 (the year when it was first produced). Its purpose is to be as eclectic as possible while remaining faithful to its aim. For this reason TSIDMZ has always been involved in collaborations with other musicians, including appearances and track collaborations etc. and will always continue along this working template. TSIDMZ has signed and released with musical labels as: Old Europa Café, Ufa Muzak, SkullLine and much more.

TSIDMZ stands for THULESEHNSUCHT IN DER MASCHINENZEIT, that is to say Sehnsucht (nostalgia) for Thule in Machine Times. Thule is a "primordial space", a physical place probably, but a metaphysical one undoubtedly. According to the Indo-European mythology, Indo-European peoples who once inhabited the lands of Eurasia were descended from Thule, the last land remained of the continent Hyperborea. Very briefly and roughly speaking, we can say that Thule is the equivalent of the biblical Eden. It is the place of the original "perfection", the place of the ancestors and heroes who lived close to the divine. TSIDMZ expresses exactly this sort of nostalgia both from a pessimistic point of view, meaning 'absence', and from a constructive point of view, meaning a new accomplishment. This new accomplishment has then to be fulfilled in our times, “In Der Maschinenzeit”. Is it possible to realize a fair, sublime, “spiritual” society in the post-atomic era? According to TSIDMZ, some possible answer is to be found in the Futurism on an artistic and cultural level, while in Socialism, on a political and social level. As a consequence, electronic music and every form of “industrial” art becomes imperative. As far as the social and the political levels are concerned, this New Man has to be a master of the machine, and not a slave or a victim anymore. Likewise, on a cultural level the New Man needs to integrate and identify with the machine, which has to become part of this new Culture. As a result, this will create an artistic and aesthetic identification, which will give a new identity appropriate to the Worker, as Jünger understood it.

''THE TECHNIQUE IS THE MEAN BY WHICH THE FIGURE OF THE WORKER MOBILIZES THE WORLD'' Ernst Jünger

As consequence TSIDMZ enjoyed the Eurasian idea, concept and theme: social equilibrium, overcoming of every ideology, a metapolitical and metaphysical weltanschauung to regain the Eternity in the post-modernity.

Old Europa Café, a very important label that has been lasting for ages and has brought us tons of alternative music, publishes you. On their website, we can read the motto ‘No politics, no religions, no standards’. You also claim your project is apolitical. In your point of view, the Eurasiatic project - of which you are part of - is not so much a political project as it is a ‘weltanschauung’. Please explain this in more detail.

The main creator of the modern Eurasianism is Aleksandr Dugin. He revived the Russian Eurasianism of the '20s, through a deep study of the present days geopolitics.

As Jean Thiriart, Alain De Benoist and Alain Soral, he considers obsolete the dichotomy between left and right and the identification in old ideologies (like communism, liberalism and fascism); what matters today is choosing between conformism or resistance to the unipolar world of banks and globalist powers. Along with him, other names such as Claudio Mutti and Christian Bouchet are a fundamental part of the Eurasian project.

The philosophical / geopolitical Eurasianist view and its subsequent formulation into the Fourth Political Theory takes note of the fact that we are in the age of post-modernity, the modern world is finished and fighting with its dated, partial and failed ideologies is utopian and harmful. Nowadays only the big geographical spaces really count, and only a compact Eurasian policy would mean the end of the biggest current problem: the inhuman, immoral and globalist White House and Israel lobbies usurocracy.

This compact does not mean at all a cultural and social melting-pot, but an alliance among traditional forces (Orthodox Christianity, what remains healthy of Buddhism, Catholicism and traditional Islam, which for sure is not the one in the Saudi and Afghan style) and among anti-globalist and not corrupt political forces, for a world in which the basic principle is not the economy based on the nothing/the market, but on the human being, understood as a being made up of spirit, mind and matter; understood in its most deep meaning, as master, and not a victim anymore of the materialism, the technology and the economy of nowadays, that is ruling and enslaving the political processes. If you forget this, you end up caught in subhuman levels where prevarication and profit become the only valid principles.

So faced with the prospective of a complete social, cultural, economical and military domination of the globe from the White House, it becomes indispensable to have a Eurasian continental block; people united, while maintaining and preserving individual identities following the example of ancient empires, in order to fight for a multi-polar world and in order to become a valid and powerful alternative to the bankrupt and unipolar western model.

The real strength of this vision is spirituality.

In the thought of Alexandr Dugin there’s a continuous reference to the works and thought of Rene Guénon and Julius Evola, just because meta-politics has a great importance in order to bring sociology and politics back into their true dimension: a transcendent and spiritual dimension.

So the alliance we were talking about among the different traditions, religions and cultures, that together must build a different way of doing economics and politics, has a primary importance.

The economy and politics are seen as a reflection of a higher world, as only with a transcendental way of thinking, so really beyond a simple religiosity, is possible to bring humanity to live in a more fair, equal and just society.

If man is able to find and restore a balance on the earth, as a consequence is also able to restore a contact with the sacrum, the transcendent and the Absolute, and vice versa.

(1)

Let us go further into the figure of Alexandr Dugin, who is the main ideologue of the Eurasiatic movement and who is also present on your cd, as you created music on one of his speeches. He has been called a fascist by many people and even called himself a fascist several times in the past, though he has distanced himself from this term since he developed his fourth political theory. What fascinates you so about this man?

What does fascist mean? The Ukrainian revolution is the work of fascists because Right Sektor is a self-proclaimed fascist movement and this revolution was paid and supported by the White House, “Soros” and by their puppet called the EU. So what does it mean to be a fascist? It's now a really empty word that everyone uses to offend or to get a strong identity, but what does it really means nowadays?

The only two real fascisms have died in ’45 and what survived is only an imitation or something partial. To be fascist after ’45 is nonsense. How can you be something that doesn’t exist any more as a real system? That would be truly anachronistic. For the same reason nowadays it is really stupid to be anti-fascist or anti-communist. You can only say: “if I were born in ’30 or ’40, I would have been a fascist”, but just in a historical analysis.

For this reason, after ’45, only some aspects of the real fascist ideology have survived that mainly are the extreme nationalism and the extreme right wing ideology. So today, before labelling someone to be fascist it is better to ask what he means, what he takes from the original and only fascist ideology.

Every fascist movement claim to share and support old-fascist ideas, but going deeper we can find every time ONLY some aspects of the historical fascism inside these movements or people.

“Fascists” as Right Sektor (a puppet of the west), or as Forza Nuova or the ex-RSI in Italy (both pro-Atlantic) or Pinochet (a CIA puppet) in Chile are only extreme rightists with confused ideas with maybe a generic fascination for totalitarian aesthetics.

I think what fascinated Dugin about fascism is the spiritual dimension of European fascisms, the religious dimension and the anticapitalistic goals of these movements. But this is not enough to be a fascist!

And even if with “fascist” you mean someone racist and supremacist, tell me which are the countries in history that had a racist, colonialist and supremacist attitude until now? Who invented segregation of black people, who used the atomic bomb until now, who invented the Darwinist ideology in order to justify capitalism (just remember a victim of this lie: the story of Ota Benga to the one I dedicated a song with Rose Rovine e Amanti), who bombed and went to war against over 50 countries after 1945, who is doing an ethnic cleansing in Palestine, who invented the perverted free market system, who invented capitalism, which countries colonised for centuries and destroyed whole continents (and it is now worse than before), who are supporting criminal states as Saudi Arabia, Salafi sects in Syria, financing extreme right movement right now in Ukraine and so on? The Democratic and liberal states or systems!

So before judging people because they call themselves “fascist”, or before saying “Russia is imperialist”, or before saying “you are fascist” in a demagogic way just to offend or to morally eliminate something or someone we don’t understand or we don’t like, it is better to watch our own history, to see which kind of sick system we propose to the others with big arrogance and egoism, which kind of sick situation we created and we are still creating in the world, and then, when we will be so pure, maybe we can start to accuse someone of old and dismissed ideologies that, as I explained, only survive partially and mostly in a simplistic way far from the originals (when of course these ideologies are not used as puppets by the West to fight communism or communist ghosts).

Ideologies are over, are dead, are just words. For instance, explain me why in democratic Spain 2013 the banks have sequestered 50.000 homes only in 2013 (with consequent and usual suicides, social problems, misery etc.), while in totalitarian Cuba a home is a right and is for free; why people in the democratic USA that have not enough money need to go to Cuba to nurse themselves? And I could bring tons of other examples.

Alexandr Dugin: “(…) Yes I am a patriot, I think that Western civilization is decadent, I am an enemy of modern Europe, but I‘m a partisan of ancient Europe, of Indo-European Europe, European heritage of Greek, Roman, pre-modern time, I am an enemy of modernity, I am a traditionalist, I am conservative, I share the idea of regaining this heritage, shared by Rene Guenon, French traditionalist, and Julius Evola, Italian traditionalist.

So I am partisan of traditionalism, I despise the modernity, I think that modernity is degradation, I think that the real values were abandoned by Europe on the eve of the modern era and I think that we need to return to the new Middle-ages as Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev has put it.

So, I am a traditionalist, I‘m a Russian patriot, but I‘m not chauvinist, not racist, because I‘m anti-chauvinist and anti-racist.

I think that modernity and European modernity is basically racist. Not just in biological sense (racial supremacism), but, most of all, in the cultural sense – it is kind of subliminal racism that regards European values as universal ones.

But that is a completely racist attitude. You could share modern European values if you are a European man, it is up to you what values to choose. But if you regard your values, that I defined limited by history, by time, by geography, and if you import these values on other humanity, for example, Russia, or on Asian people and so on… Then you commit the act of racism. (…)

I am not fascist, not liberal, not communist. I am a representative of the Fourth political theory as a very particular kind of political ideology that tries to give up all the links with modernity, to be completely counter, anti, post or pre-modern… To be outside of the political modernity, which I consider to be evil (…).”

So what fascinates is the fact that the 4PT goes beyond simple political slogan and over the failed ideologies of the last centuries; finally someone understood that ideologies destroy ideas, because they force reality inside a prefabricated scheme and they don’t accept everything cannot fits with the scheme; finally we have a concrete and real revolution (re-volvere=going back), we have a meta-political vision, we have the willing to find Eternity inside the matter and the willing to take the best from every idea or ideology to build a Weltanschauung more complete and more actual where the people (understood as a whole of body, soul and spirit and not simple matter) is at the centre and not any more the market, the ideologies or the money.

Dugin is a bit confusing. He declares himself a Eurasiatic, but is also seen as a Russian expansionist who wants to restore the Russian sphere of influence in the former eastern bloc. For instance, in the current crisis in the Ukraine, he doesn’t only supports the annexation of Crimea, but also wants to incorporate the eastern part of the Ukraine into the Russian Federation, and also looks to parts of the Caucasus and Central Azia in the same way. Also, the symbol of the Eurasiatic movement, the logo with the eight arrows pointing to all sides, seems to go back to the ideal of Russian expansionism. What is your view on these questions? How can an Italian back a movement in which Russian expansionism takes such an important place?

First of all is better to remember that originally, before moving to Moscow, Russia was born in Ucraina. Ucraina, that means “in periferia” in Slavic, is a fake state invented by the ex-URSS, where there are different nationalities and languages. In Ucraina half of the people speaks Russian or is Russian. To be nationalist in Ucraina is a no sense.

The current government in Kiev is not legitimate, is the consequence of a violent golpe and has not any legitimacy to use strength. The previous president was corrupted and for sure there was the urgency of a change, but his position was legitimate and legal according to every democratic law. But the White House, instead pushing for new elections, armed the neo-nazis and started a war. The new Kiev government is born with a criminal golpe (it is enough to see how they burnt over than 40 people alive in Odessa, with the CIA direction), is not elected (as the last three Italian presidents who were not elected with regular elections, but imposed by the financial system, by the UE etc.) and is composed by the same kind of politics of before, oligarchs and high-finance businessmen, but now with worse goals (people from Ucraina didn’t get neither a change from all this violence).

Then why every time double standards? For example, why did the west supported the “self-determination” of Kosovo in 1999 with criminal bombing and is now fighting so harshly against the self-determination of Crimea? Self-determination is a good principle only when fits with Nato interests.

Alexandr Dugin: “If Russia intervenes in the affairs of the State whose population (the majority) regard this intervention as illegitimate, the position of the USA and NATO States would be natural and well founded. But in this situation the population of the East and South of Ukraine welcomes Russia, waits for it, pleads for Russia to come. There is a kind of civil war in Ukraine now. Russia openly supports the East and South. The USA and NATO back the West. The Westerns are trying to get all Ukraine to affirm that not all the population of the East and South is happy with Russia. This is quite true. Also true is that not all of the population of the West is happy with Right Sector, Bandera, Shukhevich and the rule of tycoons. So if Russia would invade the Western parts of Ukraine or Kiev that could be considered as a kind of illegitimate aggression. But the same aggression is in present circumstances the position of the USA that strives to help the Kiev junta take the control of the East and South. It is perceived as an illegitimate act of aggression and it will provoke fierce resistance.”

After these words from Dugin I just add that there was a referendum where more than 90% of people asked to join Russia. If with the word “democracy” we mean the “will of the people”, well this is the only case of “democracy” in the whole of Europe after ’45.

We, European people, never had the right to participate in any referendum about the decisive political projects of our time. We weren't asked if we want to send soldiers to Afghanistan, we were never asked if we still wanted to be member of the NATO, we were not asked if we wanted to have the EURO currency.

I think we are free only when we need to vote for a Big Brother participant or to go shopping, and now not even to go shopping because to buy you need money and if you don’t have a job, if you live in a country destroyed by the economic crisis, if you don’t have the money to pay the rent or to feed your children, if in Italy every day there’s a father that kills himself, what do you buy? What do you buy with money that has no value, because it's only paper, without a real value, what do you buy in a fake and virtual world where you lose a home or your life because of speculation?

But the right question is this: why are most of the media, television, and the liberal/pseudo-democratic flock so afraid of something that has never happened in history? For real do you think Russia would like to dominate the world like what's currently being done by the USA's government? Or as is being done by the high finance? Or as is being done by the trilateral commission or the Bilderberg group?

The goal of Russia in the past, and maybe for some points even now is a geopolitical independence and a regional power as natural consequence of its size. Russia has a lot of internal problems, social problems, like capitalism, and even if Putin improved a lot the social system, chased some oligarchs etc., he is anyway too much friendly with others (but at least in Russia, unlike in the West, the politics is over the economy) etc. etc.. But why are we so blind and act many times in bad faith regarding Russia, and we never see who is the real invader in this world, the real criminal?

It is enough to read Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger or Sir Halford J Mackinder's writings to understand the real White House goals, how really works this kind of GLOBAL (and not regional) imperialism/colonialism and how these last wars (Ukraine for example) were planned for years.

Reading these official White House thinkers maybe allows us to understand why the United States government is bombing countries all over the world, stealing resources, financing the criminal wahhabi and salafi systems in Syria, in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan, financing the criminal “neo-nazi” Right Sektor and Svoboda in Ukraine, financed criminals as Pinochet (a hero of many extreme right people), supporting the daily crimes in Palestine, imposing their fake stupid system based on non-values, based not on a healthy life, but based on lies, based on wild individualism. Where are the so called “free-media”? Why is there this silence?

The Eurasian cross is not a Russian expansionist symbol; it represents everything, the whole; from a point (the point has not space or time or dimension exactly as God) start the arrows or the everything, the spiritual order going everywhere.

Dugin seems to think that a war between the ‘liberal’ west and Russia is inevitable, or is even underway. I don’t think that any of the actors (be it Obama, Putin, NATO or the European Union) is mad enough to start a third world war. I’d like to know your opinion on that.

History, as we know it from at least 12.000 years, is an era that Hindu culture calls “Kali Yuga”; inside this era everything is corrupted and inside the flow of time the decay increases more and more. We live in the worse period of Kali Yuga, the last part, where everything is at its minimum, perfection doesn’t exist at all and everywhere there’s a lethal virus of corruption waiting only to spread himself more and more.

I’m sure soon or later everything will finish in a bloodbath never seen.

What is happening in Syria or Ukraine are wars against Russia.

Russia and its economic and geopolitical interests are under attack for years: Chechnya, Syria and Ukraine are only the last examples. Funny to notice that in Chechnya and Syria “the rebels” are foreign fundamentalist muslims paid by the USA (in Syria also by Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and in Ukraine the “revolutionaries” are neo-nazis paid by the White House and UE. So neo-nazi and fundamentalist muslims together under the common leader fighting for democracy… really interesting...

Until now Russia is answering weakly, but is answering.

To avoid an escalation I just hope Russia continues encouraging referenda in the regions asking to be free from the western loop, and supporting people strategically who want to be free. But firstly I hope that Europe stops being a puppet of Nato and the USA.

You don’t think Obama or Nato is so mad? Well, so only a world war fits with this adjective? Or is it enough to bomb hospitals and schools to be mad? But I think mankind, and especially the West now, is more than mad. It is possessed.

Russia only wants to sell their gas and protect their interests. The USA corporations want the same too of course, but there’s a difference in the way they act: one is a global imperialism and unipolar system from the sea, that for its own nature cannot allow to the others to compete or to build alternative systems, the other one is a continental force, an empire for its own nature (for centuries in Russia several religions and several ethnic groups coexisted) that has a lot of economic interests with Europe but without the goal of a planetary control.

As even Marx noticed, inside capitalism there are contradictions that can explode in order to allow new scenario’s. Well, this is happening, but is important that people and first of all intellectual elites and governments push for this clash that will never happen scientifically or alone as Marx misunderstood. So this war can be only a first step toward a real multipolar world.

Alexandr Dugin: “Modern American hegemony is geopolitically, strategically speaking, the representation of liberalism and Eurasia, the heartland „Earth power“, „land power“, is its strategical opponent and the heartland of the land power is obviously according to all classical geopolitics – Russia. (…) So the struggle of the Russian Federation against American hegemony inside of Russia, against the fifth column of liberals and around Russia, for example, in Ukraine, is not only the struggle for egoistically conceived national interest, but it is also a wider struggle for human freedom. (…)

So that is how Western propaganda works. They accuse all the enemies of American hegemony to be devils, to be cannibals, to be criminals… And they simultaneously support the most negative, the worst kind of racism and chauvinism in the world to promote their proper interest.”

Ungern Von Sternberg Khan seems to be a popular figure in the Eurasiatic movement. (One of Dugin’s pseudonyms as a poet seems to be Alexandr Sternberg.) Who was Ungern Von Sternberg Khan and why did you devote a cd to this person? On the cd, you praise Ungern Khan for his ‘fight against the world born from the French Revolution and his attempt to establish a traditional order in the whole of Eurasia’. Now, I don’t believe that you mean the terror that followed the French Revolution, neither the Napoleonic wars. Rather, you seem to attack the core values of the revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity. Liberalism and individualism are the core enemies of the Eurasiatic movement. You also pretend that left and right are out-dated concepts born out of the Franch Revolution. What is wrong with those values or with ‘the world born out of the French Revolution’?

Ungern, a descendant of Gengis Khan, has been a eurasianist before its time. In a world that had collapsed in a total materialism and atheism, he was the only leader who has recovered a metaphysical and transcendent vision of life and history (so beyond a petty and banal religiosity). Citing the perfect analysis of Eduardo Martino in his article "Ungern Sternberg as a prophet: The spiritual revolution in the last century", we can say: "the Bolsheviks appeared to the Baron as a first symptom of Post- Modernity that needs to be fought, but that did not mean at all that Ungern felt much affection for the Tsarist regime, with which he had worked initially by which he was honored with the Cross of St George. In fact its purpose was not so much to restore again the Romanov dynasty on the throne, but rather to create a true Eurasian empire, which we now describe.

After his collaboration with the White Army, his Spiritual Revolution began. Its purpose was to promote Mongolia as a spiritual and traditional centre of Asia, forming there a lamaist Theocracy in order then to conquer the west, corrupted by the atheistic and materialistic ideas born in ‘700.

Mankind dropped ideals such as freedom and tolerance, values ​​that have only a spiritual meaning, in vulgar rationality of mankind and nowadays, after three centuries, men still seek them in vain through reason. Westerners were spiritually tending downwards, towards everything that was sub-human and the Baron had understood this danger.

When he reached the end of his days, reading Pio Filippani Ronconi, we see that "he moved lonely in a direction that had no more relationship with the actual geographic location and with the military situation, attempting not to save his life but to reconnect himself, before his death, with his metaphysical principle: the King of the World."

So today we must remember the Baron not so much for his wars on the battlefields, but rather on the religious and spiritual field.

After all, today, we are not so much at war against a nation, against a phenomenon, against a party or a political idea , but rather against the emergence of a new and scary aeon, an aeon that will sweep away our traditions, will invert our values and trample everything for which our ancestors fought and for which we are still struggling.

Ungern Khan opposed to the counter-values ​​of the Kali-Yuga and understood with immense advance the decay, the alienation and the defeat of the human being to which we have now arrived, in the post-modernity. The French Revolution is only the culminating event, a symbol of a process desired by various lobbies, including freemasonry, in order to lead the bourgeoisie and its plutocratic and demo-liberal mentality whose true face we see today to political power.

Through the emergence of ideas and phenomena such for example of the birth of the modern bourgeois national states (used as an anti-empire tools... remembering that empire and imperialism are two diametrically opposed concepts), of the Italian Risorgimento, of marxist bolshevism, of darwinist evolutionism, of the doctrinal and ideological materialism, of the emergence of the pseudo democratic egalitarianism, of the gradual loss of monetary sovereignty, of the triumph of the free market, of the final bourgeoisie and its mentality seizure of power (the nobility of that time were not much less degraded), we arrived in the present world, globalized, depersonalized, nihilistic and warmongering.

With the French Revolution we have thrown God out of the door once and for all and we have built many demonic idols (money, progress, free-market, evolution, human rights to be imposed by hook or crook to everyone etc.) that now are destroying us.

You are part of the Eurasiatic Artists Association, which also includes bands like Barbarossa Umtrunk. What are the aims of this organisation and how is it connected with the Eurasiatic movement in general?

It’s an official group born from and an idea of mine and the german neofolk singer Sonnenkind.

The Eurasian Artists Association includes artists (writers, painters, musicians of different genres) who officially support the Eurasian idea of a metaphysical Weltanschauung of the history and the idea of a multipolar world of cultures and traditions against modern globalist monotony.

The EAA support these artists and their works in order to create even in art a resistance against the decay of the post-modern world.

Can I describe the Eurasian movement as one fighting materialism and atheism? Is it, in spiritual terms, an alliance of all spiritual movements against atheism?

Not only, is an alliance and fight of religions, cultures and identities united in order to survive against the uni-polarity of the “NWO”. Only a multi polar world could be a good first step to overcome the Orwellian totalitarianism we are living in.

The fourth political theory describes itself as ‘traditionalist’, which means that each culture should go back to its traditional roots. For Dugin and Russia, this means christian orthodoxy. However, in a debate with Alain de Benoist, who advocates going back to European pre-christian religions (paganism) even though France is more embedded in the catholic culture, he just replied that each culture had to choose for itself what religious thoughts it would embrace. So where does that leave us? Aren’t we better of with the ‘liberal’ or ‘individualistic’ freedom of religion?

"Liberal or individualistic freedom of religion" is a nonsense, because religion and individualism are antithetical. The liberal ideology of "human rights" clashes with the religious principle of God's rights, so that in a liberal regime every religion is reduced to be a Privatsache (quoting Marx) and deprived of its dignity.

Then, regarding "freedom of religion", we should reflect on the fact that the laws of orthodox Russia acknowledge Islam and Buddhism as traditional religions of the country, while in laical Italy it is impossible to pay the 5% of the income tax return to the Muslim community, which has no official convention with the Republic; or the fact that in the Parliament of Islamic Republic of Iran Christians and Zoroastrians are represented as religious communities, not as individuals without quality.

Your father, Claudio Mutti, is also featured on the cd. There seems to be a strong link between you and your father on both personal as philosophical level. However, your father has often been labelled ‘far-right’ and used to call himself a ‘nazi-maoist’. He once published the anti-semitic (in the sense of anti-jewish) ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, wrote several articles about the Romanian Iron Guard (also known as anti-semitic), about nazi-estheticism... Ungern Von Sternberg Khan was also known for pogroms against jews. I know you and your father are very critical of the state of Israel. Where do you draw the line between anti-zionism and anti-semitism?

My father doesn't love to call himself a 'nazi-maoist', as 'nazi-maoism' is a neologism produced by Italian journalism in the late 60’s to label a revolutionary trend which refused both the right and the left. Regarding (anti-)zionism and (anti-)Semitism, he uses to argue the fact that today's Jews (whose greater number speak not-Semitic languages since centuries) cannot be qualified as 'Semitic', differently from the Arabs. So, if you look for anti-Semitism, you must look for it in Arab Palestine, where a Semitic speaking people is oppressed by a regime which has no right to exist.

Let’s talk a bit about the music also. Your cd is interesting in its variation of sounds and musical styles and the incorporation of eastern elements like throat singing. You choose to cooperate with various artists on the cd. What is the idea behind that and how does the cooperation occur? Isn’t it difficult to work with such a variety of people and projects?

The intent is not to record an album with a bunch tracks all the same, with an initial model stretched and repeated in the whole disk. In order to keep alive the attention of the listener and to give space to all my musical influences, I think it is essential to be eclectic, and collaboration becomes one of the most valid tool to keep always on certain levels and in constant freshness of ideas.

Collaboration means then to enrich my style, to improve and to mature in terms of technique, concepts, content and messages.

If the initial idea is clear, well drawn and elaborated at its best, is not difficult; it’s just a problem of co-ordination.

You mentioned several projects you were currently working on. What are your plans for the future and when can we expect new work from you?

At the moment the main projects are:

Finishing to re-play in my style the first ex-Tac member Gregorio Bardini’s album: Eurasia.

Working at the third cd of my trilogy about Eurasian concept.

I’m asked by an Italian actor and director to play and compose a soundtrack for a theatre opera he would like to bring on stage.

Alexandr Dugin: “I strongly believe in the freedom of the human soul and human being. And always when the freedom is concerned, there is the possibility of choice. There is no freedom where there is no choice. Now we are living in a world where post-modernity and liberal ideology have won. They are installed at a unique contextual frame of semantic filth. So we are liberal because we are all for free market, because we have parliamentary democracy, because we share the ideology of human rights, and we are liberal unconsciously, we are obliged to be liberals without our choice, without knowing of it. In the 20th century there was an ideological choice – there was a great struggle of three political theories: of liberalism, of communism, of fascism. Three options were available to choose ones political identity. Some aspects of identity were defined by birth, by geographical position, but you could make a choice, you were politically free to choose some political identity: First, Second or Third political theory. But now, after the victory of liberalism over communism and joined victory of liberalism and communism over fascism, now we have lost any possibility of political choice. Now we are obliged to be liberals, we can only be BUT liberals… we cannot be non-liberal. That is very important, because it is a kind of global planetary dictatorship of one way of thinking, one thought. It is the kind of one thought civilization, where you could not choose your proper position, you are obliged to be liberal by the force, by the power of the market and the liberal dictatorship. But this limit must be annihilated, or it will completely destroy the human liberty. So, you could say to liberalism YES, you could say to liberalism NO. You can accept it, you could deny it. But what is going on when we accept it? That is very clear, everyone is the example how we are accepting liberalism without understanding that we are doing it, how we are used and manipulated by the liberalism that it enters in our subconsciousness, transforming us into progressive liberals without choosing it. (…) If we refuse liberalism, then we are obliged to accept communism with its critical position towards liberalism, or to accept nationalism or fascism, Second position or Third position. But these two forms of modern political thought are not enough, they have lost their battles, not because they were more modern than liberalism, but because they were more traditional, less modern than liberalism. And communism wasn‘t the result of capitalism but was more of the struggle against capitalism as the kind of alternative direction. All that was lost. And now we are in form of global liberalism as the unique thought and, if we want, if we choose to refuse liberalism, we need something else, something new.

And my idea is that we need a Fourth political theory outside of all political modernity, because the liberalism that won political struggle of the heritage of the modernity is the kind of synthesis of all political modernity that is the basic crystallization of the spirit of the modernity. And I consider this spirit to be a nihilistic spirit, to be a kind of global degradation of the spiritual conception of man. So it is the kind of devils, an anti-Christ parody of real civilization, so in order to overcome the liberalism we need to overcome much more than liberalism, than all modernity. So, my idea is to create the Fourth political theory outside of modernity mixing up to certain point post-modern critique of modernity and critique of liberalism with the pre-modern traditional approach. So this is not only the modernity that we need to restore, because to restore something artificially it’s something more than to return to the past. It is impossible to return to the past. We could and we should create a new future starting from the principles that are antithetic, that are opposite to the principles of political modernity and to the principles of liberalism. So that is more or less the ideological frame of my position but it is also the geopolitical aspect of this battle against liberalism and modernity represented in two camps, geopolitically defined as the civilization of the sea, „sea power“ and the civilization of the earth, „earth power“. Modern American hegemony is geopolitically, strategically speaking, the representation of liberalism and Eurasia, the heartland „Earth power“, „land power“, is its strategic opponent and the heartland of the land power is obviously according to all classical geopolitics – Russia. So the struggle of the Russian Federation against American hegemony inside of Russia, against the fifth column of liberals and around Russia, for example, in Ukraine, is not only the struggle for egoistically conceived national interest, but it is also a wider struggle for human freedom. (…)

Ethnos is organic community with special kind of values (1), people is a historic community with some position in world history (2) and the political nation is an artificial creation of capitalist modernity that came instead of traditional organization of middle ages as well as the society based on the empire, on the sacred values and on different castes of the society (3). (…) The political bourgeois nation is a kind of completely a-historical concept, combined and artificially created by the modern concept based on the technical necessity to unite individuals in the kind of artificial frames. So the political nation was created by the bourgeois in order to affirm individual identity, because the political nation is constructed on the basis of individual identity that is completely modern, bourgeois and capitalist and after that identity, individual identity being appropriated by the society the political nation now is disbanded, it is destroyed by the same forces that have created the nation (…) So, I‘m absolutely, not chauvinist or racist, not the partisan of such [bourgeois] „nationalism“. I don‘t like the usual modern notion of nation, because it was a capitalist, liberal and bourgeois creation. (...) So, our idea of Eurasianists, of partisans of the Fourth political theory, is to centre around the people, the people as a historic entity that is super-ethnic, but historic and tragical. (…) (The eurasian idea is more or less close to the idea of empire.) Empire is a traditional organisation of strategic unity with the conservation of difference and multiplicity of ethnic identities. So Empire is not a political nation because it is sacred, because it doesn’t destroy local identities but integrates them or lets them be as they are. So empire is strategic unity with ethnic plurality. I would define this word in such terms. I understand another empire, the strategic unity and centralization with ethnical plurality and with the sacred mission. That is the traditional empire as the Roman empire, Greek empire, Medieval empire, Byzantine empire or Russian empire.The Anglo-Saxon empire or Britain empire or modern globalistic Americano-centric empire are anti-Empires in that sense”.